tttppp wrote:Then whats the point of trading for him in the first place?

Because the Lakers can just not pick up his option at the end of the season.

With Fisher, they would have had to pay him the $3.4M next season plus tax penalties.

If the trade was just for Fisher, I'd be ok with the trade. But the Lakers gave up a 1st round pick. A first round pick gets you an impact player. Hill will most likely not even get many minutes and there is a chance the Lakers don't even keep him. So there's a strong chance the Lakers gave up a 1st round pick for nothing.

I liked the idea of using the first round pick to get Beasley. Since that deal fell through, it would have been better for the Lakers to keep the pick.

They had to include the pick to incentivize the Rockets to deal. The Rockets basically paid for the pick by acquiring Fisher's contract.

A first round pick doesn't get you an impact player necessarily. The vast majority of first round picks are actually non-impact players. I mean great example is Jordan Hill. He was what the 8th overall in 2009? And he can't get off the bench. But he costs money. The Lakers don't want to have to draft a guy in the late 20s, and then have to pay double if not more than double than his contract requires and then he can't even get off the bench.

But I understand where you're coming from, heck I wish we could have just traded all of our garbage for impact players but the reality is that Houston isn't going to pay money to get Fisher. How does that make sense when they could just keep Jordan Hill and let him walk at the end of this season? You want them to NOT save that money, lose Jordan Hill and pay MORE money to acquire Derek Fisher? Not happening in the real world. They agreed to pay Derek so they can get the first round pick. I would have preferred Beasley as well, but TWolves pulled out at the last minute even after everyone agreed verbally it sounds like. Can't deal with someone who doesn't want to deal.

He's a capable backup big who gives us a little extra depth and can reduce Drew's minutes a hair, as well as help provide a some insurance if someone gets hurt...God forbid. He's young and still can improve and for the price, that's a pretty good deal.

JSM wrote:He's a capable backup big who gives us a little extra depth and can reduce Drew's minutes a hair, as well as help provide a some insurance if someone gets hurt...God forbid. He's young and still can improve and for the price, that's a pretty good deal.

Mitch originally had a deal in place to trade the pick and Fisher for Beasley, but Minnesota backed out 7 minutes before the deadline. The goal was to acquire Beasley and dump enough contracts to enable the Lakers to keep him long-term. When that didn't happen, the cost for keeping Beasley and Fisher was too much for the front office who values cap space and flexibility especially in light of the looming excessive penalties of the CBA for luxury tax teams.

Considering this was a backup plan, I have to say Mitch did a good job at filling the needs of this team. The Lakers needed a true backup big for Bynum, and getting a young and athletic player like Hill is a decent pickup especially considering how the Lakers managed to dump Fisher's contract and establish a clear pecking order for the PG position at the same time.

Additionally, by dumping many of the bad contracts, the Lakers now have the option to use Odom's TPE in the off-season. They could potentially amnesty Artest as well, and with all of the savings they won't be nearly as hesitant to use the TPE for an impact player.

While it stings a bit to not acquire Beasley, there's no guarantee he would have been the missing last piece to help the Lakers contend for a title. While I would have preferred Beasley over Hill for this season, I would not want to see the Lakers take on too much salary and find themselves shackled with excessive penalties and restrictions by the CBA, which would likely prevent them from being contenders in the future.

It's best to be financially responsible now and avoid the penalties later on, and IMO Mitch did the right thing by trading Fisher and not using the TPE for Beasley, even if Hill doesn't contribute much.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that﻿ authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

I would venture to guess he wasn't as effective in Adleman's Princeton Offense. I read somewhere that he had some sort of breakthrough with Kevin McHale at the helm before being injured. Will this translate to similar results with Mike Brown? Who knows.

Biz wrote:I watched Jordan Hill in college quite a bit when he was at Arizona. He was the star on that Arizona team and led them to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tourney (they were a 12th seed so that was quite an accomplishment). I haven't really followed him since he was drafted, but I do know a little about what his game was like in college:-Very good/great mid-range jumper-Mediocre passing/rebounding-Very skinny-Extremely raw...didn't play organized basketball until high school and was a victim of 3 different coaches in 3 years at arizona.

Coming out of school I was pretty high on him coming out of college. I thought he could be a poor man's Amare, not sure what happened. A big criticism/downfall of his was his lack of strength/size.

It's better to have another big body to throw in down low who can play defense. Wouldn't you rather have a big who might be able to contribute and play D, relieving Gasol more so he doesn't have to play starting PF and backup C so much? We need to rest him more. And so far, the McBob/Murphy lineups haven't been terribly effective. Makes sense to bring in another option, even if a more effective SF was needed. We tried to upgrade with Beasley but couldn't, so I think Hill is a decent back up plan that comes off the books this summer if needed.

I think the trade is OK. Fisher was going to the bench anyway, they essentially got the Rockets to pay for this pick by taking his salary. The pick had no certainty around it as 12 teams currently have fewer losses than the Mavericks so using the pick this summer was not a sure thing.

Hill represents another lanky big body with some quickness. Think Brown can turn him into a decent defender, I'd be happy if he could do that in spot minutes.

I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence:Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference.

RushDelivery wrote:Mitch originally had a deal in place to trade the pick and Fisher for Beasley, but Minnesota backed out 7 minutes before the deadline. The goal was to acquire Beasley and dump enough contracts to enable the Lakers to keep him long-term. When that didn't happen, the cost for keeping Beasley and Fisher was too much for the front office who values cap space and flexibility especially in light of the looming excessive penalties of the CBA for luxury tax teams.

Considering this was a backup plan, I have to say Mitch did a good job at filling the needs of this team. The Lakers needed a true backup big for Bynum, and getting a young and athletic player like Hill is a decent pickup especially considering how the Lakers managed to dump Fisher's contract and establish a clear pecking order for the PG position at the same time.

Additionally, by dumping many of the bad contracts, the Lakers now have the option to use Odom's TPE in the off-season. They could potentially amnesty Artest as well, and with all of the savings they won't be nearly as hesitant to use the TPE for an impact player.

While it stings a bit to not acquire Beasley, there's no guarantee he would have been the missing last piece to help the Lakers contend for a title. While I would have preferred Beasley over Hill for this season, I would not want to see the Lakers take on too much salary and find themselves shackled with excessive penalties and restrictions by the CBA, which would likely prevent them from being contenders in the future.

It's best to be financially responsible now and avoid the penalties later on, and IMO Mitch did the right thing by trading Fisher and not using the TPE for Beasley, even if Hill doesn't contribute much.

Great points. I think we all would have preferred Beasley to Hill. A young dynamo like Beasley slashing to the basket and filling it up from the perimeter might have been just the ammo we needed for a deep playoff run. But regardless, Beasley would have been looking to get PAID in the summer, probably in the $8-10 million range, and for the most part he's unproven, with suspect defense, and a history of character issues. He has valuable upside, but I can't see him developing into a cornerstone of our team without maturing and improving dramatically on defense. It's easy to drool over his gaudy stats and highlight reel dunks but there's probably a reason why even a perennial doormat like the T'Wolves didn't see him in their future. Ultimately it stings a little to not know what could have been with the Lakers and Beasley, but we shouldn't mind getting a young, rotational big that can help on defense, and provide a solid cushion if Gasol or Bynum end up missing time. Furthermore, this deal offers us the cap flexibility to acquire a much bigger target somewhere down the line. The NBA is full of albatross contracts that teams can't shake themselves free from, and there are plenty of signs that the team that ends up signing Beasley long term might find themselves on that list someday.

He definitely wants to just get out there and play, help the team be where they wanna be. But more importantly, just go out there and have fun; all while doing what he has to do to help the Lakers be where they wanna be.

There are two teams that play in the Staples Center:the LA Lakers and NBA Clippers.

As inconsistent as he was, I respect Jordan Hill. He seemed like one of the few who liked playing in Houston. I wish Dr. Dreads luck as he continues his career.

Seemed like a nice guy, but too inconsistent and unfocused.

Good luck to J-Hill, if Portland plays him at the four he could be a really good bench player .

he has a better mid range game than people thought he did

didn't get enough credits from this board though

Like others believe, he should been played at the 4...too undersized at 5...his averages per 40 was actually good. And he did help the team as you can see how we struggled with him out...he will be a solid 4 who can get 10 Reb I believe if he gets the chance...I liked having him on our team and wish him the best